For those times you need to drive anywhere, but in a smaller truck than an F-150.

Trucks have been no more immune than cars when it comes to suffering from automotive bloat. The F-150 of today is a beast of a thing compared to the ones I rode around in at the turn of the century, and that's the smallest truck Ford will sell us here in the US. Life is better for the small truck fan living in Australia. For whatever reason, the small truck never died out in the Antipodes, and Ford's Asia Pacific region will still sell you the Ranger, albeit one that's still bigger than any Ranger we remember.

While I'm not the biggest truck afficionado, I bring this up because Ford does in fact plan to bring the Ranger back to these shores (along with cult favorite Bronco), and when it does, it needs to make sure that it includes the Ranger Raptor. The truck people reading this will probably not require any further explanation. For everyone else, imagine a Focus RS, but it's a truck, and it's for driving in the desert. That's certainly my take-home from the video teaser that Ford just put out:

The Ranger Raptor is due out next year—if you live down under. The US won't get any Rangers at all until 2019, so we have no idea whether this spicy version will ever be seen with the steering wheel on the left. Somehow I imagine Ford is going to get a few phone calls today saying it needs to do just that.

Promoted Comments

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

Yep, the CAFE standards have affected vehicle size. He didn't read the link so I'll post the pertinent bits here:

In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are.

Unfortunately, the footprint method has the opposite effect; rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures, much the same way the PT Cruiser did. Full-size trucks have become a “protected class”, safe from the most aggressive targets, while compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result.

CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup.

But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFE footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFE.

102 Reader Comments

I would do terrible things for a modern vehicle built on the old Bronco paradigm. Fully enclosed is OK, but I'd love to see the removable rear hard top come back too. While we're at it, I'd also love the entire interior waterproof to the point you could just pressure-wash the inside to clean it.

Both the Honda Element and the Toyota FJ Cruiser had pressure-washer-friendly interiors, with waterproof seat upholstery and rubberized floors. I don't understand why more companies don't do this with outdoors-oriented vehicles. It's really handy to have no smell-and-dirt-absorbing surfaces inside your camping vehicle.

This looks great. I will be in the market for a "small" (that is, large, but built for humans less than 10 feet tall) truck, but Tacomas are impossible to find.

But, there's a factor that keeps putting me off: 4 doors & short bed. 4 doors is important, since what's the point of pulling the boat/camper/bikes/whatever if you can't carry the people who use it.But, a short bed is useless. If I can't put 8-ft lumber in it when doing projects, it's a waste.

I'd rather have the whole back fully enclosed, with fold-down seats for hauling long items.

OK, so you think "dummy, that's an SUV", but no. I'm not looking for third-row seats and an entertainment center. The back should still be durable bedliner, with tie-downs and no plastic pillar coverings to break when you are throwing lumber in the back. It's just that the roof goes all the way back, without a stupid barrier behind the seats.

This is how the old 1970s and 1980s Broncos were made, and it is a really convenient layout (not accounting for the old crappy bench seats, etc) It just needs to be updated to the 21st century.

I would do terrible things for a modern vehicle built on the old Bronco paradigm. Fully enclosed is OK, but I'd love to see the removable rear hard top come back too. While we're at it, I'd also love the entire interior waterproof to the point you could just pressure-wash the inside to clean it.

Sweet Christmas. I haven't owned a car in close to 15 years, but something like that would tempt me back to the market.

I would do terrible things for a modern vehicle built on the old Bronco paradigm. Fully enclosed is OK, but I'd love to see the removable rear hard top come back too. While we're at it, I'd also love the entire interior waterproof to the point you could just pressure-wash the inside to clean it.

Both the Honda Element and the Toyota FJ Cruiser had pressure-washer-friendly interiors, with waterproof seat upholstery and rubberized floors. I don't understand why more companies don't do this with outdoors-oriented vehicles. It's really handy to have no smell-and-dirt-absorbing surfaces inside your camping vehicle.

I really like the Element, but the original one at least explicitly said not to hose it out. They gave a reason for it that had to do with the type of rubberized floor they were using, don't remember the details, but do remember being pretty disappointed since I'd been thinking about getting one to replace my old Cherokee.

I would do terrible things for a modern vehicle built on the old Bronco paradigm. Fully enclosed is OK, but I'd love to see the removable rear hard top come back too. While we're at it, I'd also love the entire interior waterproof to the point you could just pressure-wash the inside to clean it.

Both the Honda Element and the Toyota FJ Cruiser had pressure-washer-friendly interiors, with waterproof seat upholstery and rubberized floors. I don't understand why more companies don't do this with outdoors-oriented vehicles. It's really handy to have no smell-and-dirt-absorbing surfaces inside your camping vehicle.

Damnit, I miss my AWD Element now. Gas mileage wasn't great for the size, but that thing was versatile. I'd probably still be driving it if my (then) wife hadn't rolled it over. We're divorced now. These two things are unrelated, I swear.

I have a 2001 Ranger that I bought used, in about 05. I have put new brakes on it, a new steering gear, a few bits of the 4 wheel drive electronics, new tires, and its probably going to need a new transmission in a couple years.

I am going to drive it til I can't wrench it back to health, or I can buy a used 2019 NA Ranger for roughly what I bought this one for. I drive it everywhere, everyday and you couldn't pay me to buy a 'full sized' truck right now. They can't start making Rangers for the US soon enough.

I'd rather they put their efforts into selling a pickup that isn't so ridiculously fuckhuge and has a reasonable bed level so I can load shit in the back without doing a god damn power clean. I feel like if I got one nowadays I'd need to take it to a Hispanic body shop just to put it in the realm of reasonable.

I have a 2000 Ranger extended cab with the 5-speed manual, 2WD, and the 2.5l 4. I get roughly 25 mpg and it is running absolutely fine. 90K miles. I took it to France for 6 years, and it ran around, hauling manure and gravel and stone with no problems except for the ball joints, after 12 years, and the exhaust after 13. The original battery lasted 10 years. Still has original brakes and clutch.

Now, I am starting to see the need to fix stuff like the fuel pump and maybe the A/C, but I don't want or need to spend $20K for a small truck. I want it small - I don't need more than the extended cab. I WOULD like a third door for easier access to the back of the cab, but absolutely do NOT want 4 doors. It MUST fit into my garage.

My wife keeps nudging me to get a new truck, but I don't see anything I want - 4 cylinder, manual transmission, extended cab with a sizeable bed to be able to haul a yard of mulch. Maybe a diesel engine, if Ford can figure out how to make a decent one - they sell them in the EU, why not here?

It is possible that I will own this truck till I die, in about 30 years (I hope).

I have a 4cyl 98. It's rusty and crusty, 200k+ miles, looks like hell, but runs great. The old Ranger is the right size, not this new beast. It blows my mind when I see some massive 4-door 4wd pickup that has a bed the same size or smaller than my Ranger. Oh well, I'll keep driving it, until I can't.

I parked my PN150 (North American) Ranger supercab next to a 2016 P375 (global) Ranger Wildtrak crew cab. The new Ranger was about a couple of inches longer and hardly any wider. The big difference was in height; the P375 is about 8-10" taller. Most of that comes from the fact that its ride height is higher.

The global Ranger just looks big because it's taller, the bed sides/door sills are higher, and the most popular body style is the crew cab which the PN150 Ranger was never offered in. The closest we had to a crew cab Ranger was the Explorer Sport Trac.

edited to add:

So 2" longer wheelbase (largely due to the crew cab body) a few more inches OAL (greater overhangs.)

not really a hill of beans IMO.

It (the Global Ranger) won't fit in my garage and I have no use for 2 extra seats. I do have a use for the longer bed. Functionality vs styling.

Oh, and one other reason the global Ranger is those few inches longer than the old PN150 is that the top engine in it is a relatively long 5-cylinder diesel. The US Ranger only ever had 4s and V6s. Even the "big" 4.0 SOHC V6 offered in North America was considerably shorter in length than an I-5.

Both the Honda Element and the Toyota FJ Cruiser had pressure-washer-friendly interiors, with waterproof seat upholstery and rubberized floors. I don't understand why more companies don't do this with outdoors-oriented vehicles. It's really handy to have no smell-and-dirt-absorbing surfaces inside your camping vehicle.

drainage is a big issue. you have to design in adequate floor drains which can also be adequately sealed from road spray, and minimize the chance that water (especially salty water if you live in a snow region) can get trapped between the floor pad and sheetmetal. Would suck to have your floorpan rust from the inside out.

Oh, and one other reason the global Ranger is those few inches longer than the old PN150 is that the top engine in it is a relatively long 5-cylinder diesel. The US Ranger only ever had 4s and V6s. Even the "big" 4.0 SOHC V6 offered in North America was considerably shorter in length than an I-5.

Both the Honda Element and the Toyota FJ Cruiser had pressure-washer-friendly interiors, with waterproof seat upholstery and rubberized floors. I don't understand why more companies don't do this with outdoors-oriented vehicles. It's really handy to have no smell-and-dirt-absorbing surfaces inside your camping vehicle.

drainage is a big issue. you have to design in adequate floor drains which can also be adequately sealed from road spray, and minimize the chance that water (especially salty water if you live in a snow region) can get trapped between the floor pad and sheetmetal. Would suck to have your floorpan rust from the inside out.

it's a bigger problem than you think.

Honda has a drain for its in-bed trunk of the second-gen Ridgeline so you can load it with ice and use it as a cooler. It can be done.

What is the point of getting a pickup truck that cannot load a 4'x8' sheet of plywood or wallboard flat? If it cannot do that, it is just an expensive toy.

Landscaping dirt and wood chips and gravel? Lumber? Motorcycles? There's more to pickup trucks than sheets of plywood.

Lumber is most commonly 8' long. You put that on top of the plywood.

People loading dirt, wood chips, and gravel is why I routinely see overloaded pickups with their front wheels barely touching the ground or down so far the wheels rub the fender with every bump. Seems most of these pickup owners do not realize that there is a limit to how much they can load, and the limit for some of these "trucks" is ridiculously low.

What is the point of getting a pickup truck that cannot load a 4'x8' sheet of plywood or wallboard flat? If it cannot do that, it is just an expensive toy.

Landscaping dirt and wood chips and gravel? Lumber? Motorcycles? There's more to pickup trucks than sheets of plywood.

Lumber is most commonly 8' long. You put that on top of the plywood.

People loading dirt, wood chips, and gravel is why I routinely see overloaded pickups with their front wheels barely touching the ground or down so far the wheels rub the fender with every bump. Seems most of these pickup owners do not realize that there is a limit to how much they can load, and the limit for some of these "trucks" is ridiculously low.

Yup. I gave up and bought a 5 x 8 trailer rather than try and futz with the current truck market. It's just all over the place, and obviously not catering to the legacy truck market. I eventually accepted that that was fine. Most people that want a truck want it because they want a truck, not because they use a truck. Then most of the market that needs a truck use it as a work vehicle to haul things and they generally use a trailer for hauling , and so it's just about getting to construction sites or remote areas while providing a nice ride for the clients. Meaning beds get smaller and the interior gets nicer.

(...) CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup. (...)

My wife´s business is in need of a compact pickup truck. Man, we´ve spent full days searching for something that will fit her needs, we can only find full size trucks or fully luxury giants.

I had the previous generation (2014) F-150 Raptor. It was amazing for what it was good at, namely driving fast off-road. It also had great on-road manners. I'm not a luxury car person, but the interior fit and finish (aside from Ford Sync, which was atrocious) seemed quite good. Those seat coolers were lovely in Death Valley.

The problem was it /wasn't/ good at being a pickup truck. The payload capacity was way too low to haul gravel, the bed was too short to carry my ATV (tailgate down is a bad idea for this purpose), and the towing capacity was too low to haul a trailer full of equipment.

Oh, and one other reason the global Ranger is those few inches longer than the old PN150 is that the top engine in it is a relatively long 5-cylinder diesel. The US Ranger only ever had 4s and V6s. Even the "big" 4.0 SOHC V6 offered in North America was considerably shorter in length than an I-5.

Both the Honda Element and the Toyota FJ Cruiser had pressure-washer-friendly interiors, with waterproof seat upholstery and rubberized floors. I don't understand why more companies don't do this with outdoors-oriented vehicles. It's really handy to have no smell-and-dirt-absorbing surfaces inside your camping vehicle.

drainage is a big issue. you have to design in adequate floor drains which can also be adequately sealed from road spray, and minimize the chance that water (especially salty water if you live in a snow region) can get trapped between the floor pad and sheetmetal. Would suck to have your floorpan rust from the inside out.

it's a bigger problem than you think.

Honda has a drain for its in-bed trunk of the second-gen Ridgeline so you can load it with ice and use it as a cooler. It can be done.

the whole bed (at least the inside walls and bed floor) are plastic composite; made from sheet molding compound (SMC.) nothing to rust.

source: I'm friends with the guy in charge of the team that made the tooling used to manufacture the bed.

I have a 4cyl 98. It's rusty and crusty, 200k+ miles, looks like hell, but runs great. The old Ranger is the right size, not this new beast. It blows my mind when I see some massive 4-door 4wd pickup that has a bed the same size or smaller than my Ranger. Oh well, I'll keep driving it, until I can't.

I parked my PN150 (North American) Ranger supercab next to a 2016 P375 (global) Ranger Wildtrak crew cab. The new Ranger was about a couple of inches longer and hardly any wider. The big difference was in height; the P375 is about 8-10" taller. Most of that comes from the fact that its ride height is higher.

The global Ranger just looks big because it's taller, the bed sides/door sills are higher, and the most popular body style is the crew cab which the PN150 Ranger was never offered in. The closest we had to a crew cab Ranger was the Explorer Sport Trac.

edited to add:

So 2" longer wheelbase (largely due to the crew cab body) a few more inches OAL (greater overhangs.)

not really a hill of beans IMO.

I appreciate the pictures, but I come to a bit of a different conclusion than you. The bottom Ranger is the only one with a full bed, and they do that in a package that is shorter and significantly narrower than the other trucks.

I'm in NYC and not really tuned into the truck market these days, so I wasn't aware of the disappearance of smaller trucks until I visited my Dad recently. He had just picked up a couple year old Tacoma, because he said it was just really hard to find a two door pickup with a little room behind the seat, but not 4 doors. He parked it next to his old Chevy fullsize truck, and the Tacoma was bigger in almost every dimension except bed size, but the particularly amazing thing was how high the bed was. My dad is in his 70s now, and having a bed that high makes loading a lot more strenuous, and trying to hop into the back is nigh impossible, even the dogs can't do it without help.

What is the point of getting a pickup truck that cannot load a 4'x8' sheet of plywood or wallboard flat? If it cannot do that, it is just an expensive toy.

Landscaping dirt and wood chips and gravel? Lumber? Motorcycles? There's more to pickup trucks than sheets of plywood.

Can you even get a motorcycle in one of these beds, even with the tailgate down? I had to have the tailgate down even with a full bed to transport my BMW, which I think was around 80".

To transport my KLR650 in my 2014 Raptor (66" bed) I had to leave the tailgate down and, even then, it was perilously close to not fitting. Ditto with my ATV. It's a little harrowing when a bad tie-down job will result in your back wheel slipping off the tailgate.

Not to mention the tailgate is really not intended for that kind of dynamic load.

The incredible shrinking pickup bed means that I've had to buy superduty pickups for what would otherwise be a fine application of an F-150,.

(...) CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup. (...)

My wife´s business is in need of a compact pickup truck. Man, we´ve spent full days searching for something that will fit her needs, we can only find full size trucks or fully luxury giants.

Why are you not looking at Tacomas or Frontiers or Colorados? They may not be truly "compact," but they're sure has heck not "full-size trucks" either (that would be their siblings the Tundra, Titan, and Silverado).

There's not a meaningful fuel economy difference between a true compact truck like the old Ranger and S-10 and a midsize truck like the current Tacoma and Colorado.

Not true. Fuelly shows the 4 cylinder ranger at 22-27 MPG, compared to 18-20 for the current Colorado, and 17-18 for the tacoma. Also keep in mind that ranger powertrain was a decade old in 2011, yet manages to beat out a new 2017 truck. The small size and weight makes a HUGE difference.

A modern ranger with, say, the 1.5L turbo from a honda civic hatchback would be relatively snappy compared to the old one, and would easily sit in the upper 20 MPG range. Perhaps low 30s with an aluminum body. That would put it 10-12MPG higher then even the best current midsizer.

What is the point of getting a pickup truck that cannot load a 4'x8' sheet of plywood or wallboard flat? If it cannot do that, it is just an expensive toy.

Landscaping dirt and wood chips and gravel? Lumber? Motorcycles? There's more to pickup trucks than sheets of plywood.

Can you even get a motorcycle in one of these beds, even with the tailgate down? I had to have the tailgate down even with a full bed to transport my BMW, which I think was around 80".

To transport my KLR650 in my 2014 Raptor (66" bed) I had to leave the tailgate down and, even then, it was perilously close to not fitting. Ditto with my ATV. It's a little harrowing when a bad tie-down job will result in your back wheel slipping off the tailgate.

Not to mention the tailgate is really not intended for that kind of dynamic load.

The incredible shrinking pickup bed means that I've had to buy superduty pickups for what would otherwise be a fine application of an F-150,.

You know you can still get F150s with powerful 5.0 V8s or 3.5L ecoboosts (the high output 450HP ones) and an 8 foot bed right? Or with a supercrew quad cab with a 6.5 foot bed.

Wouldn't take much to get them in compliance for everything but pedestrian safety. Higher door sills. Heavier pillars to support the vehicle in a rollover. It'd still weigh under 3000lbs and have a sub 9' length. Kais are great little vehicles and are the gold standard for "appliance on wheels". Beating out the Toyota Corolla for that title.

Quote:

But there's an exception: 21 states allow kei trucks (also known as "mini-trucks") of any age to be imported as off-road vehicles and registered as ATVs,

(...) CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup. (...)

My wife´s business is in need of a compact pickup truck. Man, we´ve spent full days searching for something that will fit her needs, we can only find full size trucks or fully luxury giants.

Google Kei truck or mini trick and your state. There's a trailer seller "nearby" that sells them and Kei vans where I live for 9-20k

There's not a meaningful fuel economy difference between a true compact truck like the old Ranger and S-10 and a midsize truck like the current Tacoma and Colorado.

Not true. Fuelly shows the 4 cylinder ranger at 22-27 MPG, compared to 18-20 for the current Colorado, and 17-18 for the tacoma. Also keep in mind that ranger powertrain was a decade old in 2011, yet manages to beat out a new 2017 truck. The small size and weight makes a HUGE difference.

Are you comparing 4x4 V6 versions of the Tacoma and Colorado to 4x2 i4 versions of the Ranger? (And I notice Fuelly doesn't segregate the i4 4x2 Colorados from the more-popular V6 4x4 model). Apples and oranges. If you look at the fuel economy.gov ratings of the i4 4x2 Colorado specifically, it's within 1 mpg of a 4x2 i4 Ranger.

I have a 4cyl 98. It's rusty and crusty, 200k+ miles, looks like hell, but runs great. The old Ranger is the right size, not this new beast. It blows my mind when I see some massive 4-door 4wd pickup that has a bed the same size or smaller than my Ranger. Oh well, I'll keep driving it, until I can't.

I parked my PN150 (North American) Ranger supercab next to a 2016 P375 (global) Ranger Wildtrak crew cab. The new Ranger was about a couple of inches longer and hardly any wider. The big difference was in height; the P375 is about 8-10" taller. Most of that comes from the fact that its ride height is higher.

The global Ranger just looks big because it's taller, the bed sides/door sills are higher, and the most popular body style is the crew cab which the PN150 Ranger was never offered in. The closest we had to a crew cab Ranger was the Explorer Sport Trac.

edited to add:

So 2" longer wheelbase (largely due to the crew cab body) a few more inches OAL (greater overhangs.)

not really a hill of beans IMO.

I appreciate the pictures, but I come to a bit of a different conclusion than you. The bottom Ranger is the only one with a full bed, and they do that in a package that is shorter and significantly narrower than the other trucks.

I'm in NYC and not really tuned into the truck market these days, so I wasn't aware of the disappearance of smaller trucks until I visited my Dad recently. He had just picked up a couple year old Tacoma, because he said it was just really hard to find a two door pickup with a little room behind the seat, but not 4 doors. He parked it next to his old Chevy fullsize truck, and the Tacoma was bigger in almost every dimension except bed size, but the particularly amazing thing was how high the bed was. My dad is in his 70s now, and having a bed that high makes loading a lot more strenuous, and trying to hop into the back is nigh impossible, even the dogs can't do it without help.

You can get the global ranger as a space cab also if you need a larger bed but you can't option a longer wheelbase like you can the F150.

But honestly, if you need a proper sized bed you rip the tub off and put a proper tray on it instead, like this:

Fair enough. Counterboint, why do you need that specific engine? the normal 3.5L and 5.0L are already plenty powerful (and the 3.5L is rated to tow rediculous weights). Why not just buy a normal F150 and have third party shocks/tires put on?

There's not a meaningful fuel economy difference between a true compact truck like the old Ranger and S-10 and a midsize truck like the current Tacoma and Colorado.

Not true. Fuelly shows the 4 cylinder ranger at 22-27 MPG, compared to 18-20 for the current Colorado, and 17-18 for the tacoma. Also keep in mind that ranger powertrain was a decade old in 2011, yet manages to beat out a new 2017 truck. The small size and weight makes a HUGE difference.

Are you comparing 4x4 V6 versions of the Tacoma and Colorado to 4x2 i4 versions of the Ranger? (And I notice Fuelly doesn't segregate the i4 4x2 Colorados from the more-popular V6 4x4 model). Apples and oranges. If you look at the fuel economy.gov ratings of the i4 4x2 Colorado specifically, it's within 1 mpg of a 4x2 i4 Ranger.

Fuelly doesnt sort by 4X4 or 4X2 at all. The 4X2 i4 tacoma and 4X2 i4 colorado are thrown in with their respective 4X4 models. Same goes for the ford ranger.

I only compared the 2.3L i4 ranger with the i4 colorado and tacoma. Agregated together, mileage appears to be 1-2 MPG lower for the colorado and tacoma VS the ranger. That means that the now 17 year old powertrain (the engine was first used in 2001, the transmission for the 5 speed manual first was used in the ranger in 1993!) of the ranger is STILL more efficient then a modern middle size truck.

My point still stands. An updated ranger the size of the old one would kick the colorado's hind end in MPG thanks to a much smaller body.

there is no replacement for displacement, and there is no replacement for a small body either. The ranger of old was much smaller and lighter then the colorado is today, and it wouldnt take much for that old design to be updated.

Even fuel economy .gov shows a 2 MPG advantage in favor of the ranger VS the colorado.

Fair enough. Counterboint, why do you need that specific engine? the normal 3.5L and 5.0L are already plenty powerful (and the 3.5L is rated to tow rediculous weights). Why not just buy a normal F150 and have third party shocks/tires put on?

It wasn't me that said I needed it. I have very little off-roading experience. But a Raptor is far more than just an engine, shocks, and tire upgrade over any other 4x4 F-150. Beadlock wheels (optional), wider frame, paddle shifters, aggressive looks, lockers, auxiliary switches, off-road modes etc. You can add some of that after market, but I'm sure it's nice to have it in an integrated package with a manufacturer's warranty.

(...) CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup. (...)

My wife´s business is in need of a compact pickup truck. Man, we´ve spent full days searching for something that will fit her needs, we can only find full size trucks or fully luxury giants.

Why not get a van like the rest of the world uses. Something like a Ford Transit or Transit Connect?

I'd rather they put their efforts into selling a pickup that isn't so ridiculously fuckhuge and has a reasonable bed level so I can load shit in the back without doing a god damn power clean. I feel like if I got one nowadays I'd need to take it to a Hispanic body shop just to put it in the realm of reasonable.

No, I mean a full-size pickup (F-150, Silverado, RAM) that doesn't feel like its ride height was built expressly to market to wannabe mudder rednecks. A tow capacity of 10K lbs plus a bed height that lets me load a half ton in and out without wishing I had a forklift or loading deck.

But, the Ridgeline is a lot of what I could use if I could afford a pickup right now.

Fuelly doesnt sort by 4X4 or 4X2 at all. The 4X2 i4 tacoma and 4X2 i4 colorado are thrown in with their respective 4X4 models. Same goes for the ford ranger.

WHich makes it useless for comparison purposes if most new Colorados are V6 4x4s and most Rangers were i4 4x2s...

Quote:

I only compared the 2.3L i4 ranger with the i4 colorado and tacoma. Agregated together, mileage appears to be 1-2 MPG lower for the colorado and tacoma VS the ranger. That means that the now 17 year old powertrain (the engine was first used in 2001, the transmission for the 5 speed manual first was used in the ranger in 1993!) of the ranger is STILL more efficient then a modern middle size truck.

My point still stands. An updated ranger the size of the old one would kick the colorado's hind end in MPG thanks to a much smaller body.

there is no replacement for displacement, and there is no replacement for a small body either.

Sometimes, sometimes not. The current Ford Fusion is smaller than an Accord or Sonata but is also less fuel-efficient than either. I think a Toyota Highlander walks all over a Ford Edge in fuel efficiency despite the Edge being more compact.

Quote:

The ranger of old was much smaller and lighter then the colorado is today, and it wouldnt take much for that old design to be updated.

It would take a LOT for the old Ranger to be made comparable safety-wise to a 2017 Colorado or Tacoma. Even with the 2008 IIHS testing as opposed to 2017 IIHS testing, , the Ranger had "marginal" performance. And without updating that, the truck would be a public embarrassment for Ford after crash test results compared back-to-back to other 2017 trucks came out.

Quote:

Even fuel economy .gov shows a 2 MPG advantage in favor of the ranger VS the colorado.

I'm seeing 20 mpg city, 26 mpg highway for the i4 4x2 2017 Colorado and 21 mpg city, 26 mpg highway for the i4 4x2 2009 Ranger. I called those numbers "basically the same," and I stand by that statement.

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

Yep, the CAFE standards have affected vehicle size. He didn't read the link so I'll post the pertinent bits here:

It's not that I didn't read it. I've seen that article before. I agree with the article that CAFE creates, on paper, some degree of disincentive for a certain size truck. What I disagree with is that that disincentive, instead of other market forces, is the predominant reason why small trucks have disappeared from the market. I disagree with that conclusion because:

(1) American consumers really, really, really like interior space. We've seen it repeatedly in every single auto segment. Anyone who sells cars for a living knows that interior spaciousness is a selling point.

(2). Compact trucks are not more fuel efficient than midsizers. A modern Colorado 4x2 gets basically exactly the same fuel economy as the old Ranger 4x2, despite being much more powerful and much roomier.

(3) Compact trucks are not cheaper than midsizers. At least not when built to the same safety standards.

(4) Most American truck buyers, when offered the choice between a $20k compact truck and $20k midsize truck that offer the same fuel economy, are gonna buy the midsizers. The vast majority. People who want the compact truck to maneuver up fire roads have valid desires, but they're a statistical minority of buyers by a wide margin. And so the companies are going to cater to the majority of buyers.

Again, it's not that I disagree with what CAFE says. It's that I don't think it's the driving force. For example, if the federal government said you couldn't hunt grizzly bears with a Bowie knife without at $200 permit, and nobody chose to hunt grizzly bears with a Bowie knife in 2018, I think an article blaming the lack of bear-knife-hunting primarily on that $200 fee would be wrong, even though the fee exists. There's other reasons driving people away from bear-knife-hunting (like a desire to not die).

This, right here, is the real reason. This is also what European and Chinese regulators are now finding out the hard way with the SUV/CUV market taking off there. It's all about customer preference as for most people the typical car-based SUV package really is what they want/need and arguably a return to the vehicle packaging and sizing of the 30s/40s/50s. The ghost of Harley Earl ruled the automotive world for 50+ years and we're just now returning to how things used to be.

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

Yep, the CAFE standards have affected vehicle size. He didn't read the link so I'll post the pertinent bits here:

In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are.

Unfortunately, the footprint method has the opposite effect; rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures, much the same way the PT Cruiser did. Full-size trucks have become a “protected class”, safe from the most aggressive targets, while compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result.

CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup.

But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFE footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFE.

If the current EPA can successfully roll back CAFE standards, we might see some of the cool compact trucks again.

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

Yep, the CAFE standards have affected vehicle size. He didn't read the link so I'll post the pertinent bits here:

In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are.

Unfortunately, the footprint method has the opposite effect; rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures, much the same way the PT Cruiser did. Full-size trucks have become a “protected class”, safe from the most aggressive targets, while compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result.

CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup.

But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFE footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFE.

If the current EPA can successfully roll back CAFE standards, we might see some of the cool compact trucks again.

Their disappearance has nothing to do with CAFE and everything to do with the Chicken Tax, NHTSA crash/impact rules, economies of scale, and customer preferences.

I'd rather they put their efforts into selling a pickup that isn't so ridiculously fuckhuge and has a reasonable bed level so I can load shit in the back without doing a god damn power clean. I feel like if I got one nowadays I'd need to take it to a Hispanic body shop just to put it in the realm of reasonable.

No, I mean a full-size pickup (F-150, Silverado, RAM) that doesn't feel like its ride height was built expressly to market to wannabe mudder rednecks. A tow capacity of 10K lbs plus a bed height that lets me load a half ton in and out without wishing I had a forklift or loading deck.

But, the Ridgeline is a lot of what I could use if I could afford a pickup right now.

The Ridgeline maxes out at just half of the tow capacity you want (5,000 lbs).

I recently rented a GMC Sierra 4x2 (very basic model, though it did have a V8) to get a new dryer home from the store. It seemed to me that it rode a lot lower than 4x4 half-tons. Are you sure you're looking at 4x2 models?